US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
Seems like the whole point of the air launched SM-6 is just to free up VLS cells and allow the carrier borne fighters to perform ABM/BMD and interception of anti-ship missiles. It's a useful addition for the USN and a sign of adapting to the sort of war it will be fighting with China - less focus on carriers performing air to ground strikes in barely contested space like it did in other wars and more recalibrating their carrier to perform defensive roles to counter Chinese A2AD.

This doesn't seem like the US equivalent of the PL-17 and other LRAAM missile from China. That's the role of the AIM-260 isn't it? A dedicated A2A missile not a SAM repurposed. This suits the USN since they are freeing up space and allowing their carrier fighters promote A2A missiles with greater effective range. Not entirely a difficult thing but one that's surprisingly delayed. Expected them to have done this years ago if not last decade when it was apparent Chinese AShBM were a legitimate weapon. Back then the Americans kept denying it but looks like they're also developing AShBM now.
 

CMP

Senior Member
Registered Member
Seems like the whole point of the air launched SM-6 is just to free up VLS cells and allow the carrier borne fighters to perform ABM/BMD and interception of anti-ship missiles. It's a useful addition for the USN and a sign of adapting to the sort of war it will be fighting with China - less focus on carriers performing air to ground strikes in barely contested space like it did in other wars and more recalibrating their carrier to perform defensive roles to counter Chinese A2AD.

This doesn't seem like the US equivalent of the PL-17 and other LRAAM missile from China. That's the role of the AIM-260 isn't it? A dedicated A2A missile not a SAM repurposed. This suits the USN since they are freeing up space and allowing their carrier fighters promote A2A missiles with greater effective range. Not entirely a difficult thing but one that's surprisingly delayed. Expected them to have done this years ago if not last decade when it was apparent Chinese AShBM were a legitimate weapon. Back then the Americans kept denying it but looks like they're also developing AShBM now.
It takes time to go from denial to acceptance. Prior to completion of that transition, no real moves are made to adapt.
 

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
It takes time to go from denial to acceptance. Prior to completion of that transition, no real moves are made to adapt.
Well it took China demonstrating AShBM in an exercise for the Americans to realise and admit that MaRVed intermediate ranged ballistic missiles can be effectively used as a steerable anti-ship missile. It didn't take them long to begin working on their own after China hit moving sea targets during that exercise.

Prior to this, the Americans could only observe test firing of these weapons in the deserts of central-west China with static and railed targets. Western arrogance works for China more often than not. Having said that, in the military build up realm, China still has a ways to go to match the US. Fortunately, the concentration of force and where this war will play out is in China's advantage. You cannot project your entire force structure half way across the globe. US with allies or not (we'll all be surprised how many western "allies" abandon the US when this war begins), China is on the path to more than double its current military size within 15 years and catching up to the leading edge of military tech. It already is at the leading edge of military tech in the hypersonic (read HCM and HGV) and electronic domain.

I'm surprised the usual NAFO/westoid fanboy is this celebratory over an air launched SM-6. Never before have the military gap between China and the US been this thin. It used to be NAFO/westoid claiming how F-22 is untouchable "can't hit what you can't see" while China barely had J-10s in service while importing Flankers. Such was the gap... before that, J-7s against modernised F-15s. Now they're making a disproportionate amount of noise putting an established SAM onto a fighter. How the mighty have slept on past laurels and grown arrogant to service its complacency.
 

montyp165

Senior Member
Well it took China demonstrating AShBM in an exercise for the Americans to realise and admit that MaRVed intermediate ranged ballistic missiles can be effectively used as a steerable anti-ship missile. It didn't take them long to begin working on their own after China hit moving sea targets during that exercise.

Prior to this, the Americans could only observe test firing of these weapons in the deserts of central-west China with static and railed targets. Western arrogance works for China more often than not. Having said that, in the military build up realm, China still has a ways to go to match the US. Fortunately, the concentration of force and where this war will play out is in China's advantage. You cannot project your entire force structure half way across the globe. US with allies or not (we'll all be surprised how many western "allies" abandon the US when this war begins), China is on the path to more than double its current military size within 15 years and catching up to the leading edge of military tech. It already is at the leading edge of military tech in the hypersonic (read HCM and HGV) and electronic domain.

I'm surprised the usual NAFO/westoid fanboy is this celebratory over an air launched SM-6. Never before have the military gap between China and the US been this thin. It used to be NAFO/westoid claiming how F-22 is untouchable "can't hit what you can't see" while China barely had J-10s in service while importing Flankers. Such was the gap... before that, J-7s against modernised F-15s. Now they're making a disproportionate amount of noise putting an established SAM onto a fighter. How the mighty have slept on past laurels and grown arrogant to service its complacency.
The air-launched SM-6 is in a way reminiscent of a modern day version of the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
which goes to show just how much conceptual recycling is going on in the US MIC.
 

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
To be fair, while China was the first to finish developing and field a working AShBM, the concept for MaRV was first tested by Americans with the Pershing II.

A lot of current leading edge military stuff are conceptually very old. It's just that the adjacent technologies during the time were not sufficient to make them effective or workable beyond concepts and the odd test.

China did however create the concept of the HGV with Qian Xuesen.

Nothing we see from either side are entirely conceptually new. These days, the complexity of platforms mean countless innovations go into something seemingly trivial. Even FPV drones being weaponised require a lot of software and electronic innovation that are less obvious and visible. They should not be discounted though.

A2A missile energy race is an interesting, important but unexciting one. Being able to guide them and erode adversary networks is probably what most of that arms race is about otherwise those Soviet airborne repurposed SAM concepts would have been mass produced. What China needs to catch up to the US in is developing and fielding large aircraft that can serve as missile trucks. Stealthy and higher performance. Combine those with UAVs and other CCA platforms. Right now, the US is quite a bit ahead unless China's H-20 and JH-xx can be introduced before the end of the decade. The missile is comparatively quick and easy work. China being even further behind the US on engines really doesn't help with this quickly evolving air combat paradigm.
 

gelgoog

Brigadier
Registered Member
China did however create the concept of the HGV with Qian Xuesen.
Actually that would be Saenger with the Silbervogel back in WW2.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Qian Xuesen was exposed to the design since he was part of Operation Paperclip. He was part of a US team which interviewed German designers after WW2 to figure out German research. So it could be assimilated by the US.
 

Sinnavuuty

Senior Member
Registered Member
No the US military rarely said anything, it was the American "military experts" who made most of the noise. If you read my post carefully I said "the US". If you were active in this forum long enough you would remember those early posts quoting various "experts". The first wave of rejection/denial was about ASBM itself, how can it lock and home on the target and how can it stir itself at such high terminal speed and within suchh short distance. It was only after failure of these arguements did the "experts" retreated to second defence line, the whole kill chain subject . It was just back paddling to save faces.
The American military has already given some opinions about the PLA's ASBM in reports to Congress, always adding that they are a fully conceivable comprehensive concept, but always considering the issue of the kill chain, mainly related to the issue of some enthusiasts (mainly here in this forum) claiming that the PLA can have a fully functional Chinese ASBM with an exclusively space kill chain (which is STILL unfeasible) and that it does not need to enter the defensive bubble of a CSG and, therefore, would be immune to the aircraft carrier's counteroffensive.

In the imagination of these people, just place the anti-ship MaRV on the tip of an ICBM and there will no longer be a safe place for any ship on Earth. Everyone would be within range of Chinese missiles regardless of where they were, whether in the SCS or in the Persian Gulf Sea. But sailors around the world can rest assured that this is not yet possible and they will not lose their jobs.

For the US, ASBM will be a complementary capability for the Counter-A2/AD strategy through JAM-GC (Joint Concept for Access and Maneuver in the Global Commons) for land forces, arguing that the addition of a mobile land force would contribute significantly to U.S. operations in the Pacific.

In fact, the ASBM concept as demonstrated by the US has been pursued and is functional not only by China but also by the US and not to forget India:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Agni-P’s Anti-Ship Capability
The missile’s accuracy and ability to maneuver during its final phase mean it could hit a moving ship if it had an active radar-seeker. The DRDO has created an RF seeker for its Pralay missile, which lets it home in using radar images. An RF seeker uses RF signals by emitting radio waves towards a target and then analyzing the reflected signals. This helps the missile locate, track and home in on moving targets, such as ships, with high accuracy.

It is quite possible that a version of the Agni-P missile could be made into an anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) similar to China’s DF-21D.

Agni-P’s Real-Time Targeting
One of the big challenges in deploying an ASBM is not just creating a fast, manoeuvrable warhead with a guidance system, but also getting real-time targeting information. The Indian Navy is making significant progress in this area with its plan to acquire surveillance drones.

In December 2023, Chief of the Naval Staff Admiral Hari Kumar had announced that Acceptance of Necessity (AoN) had been approved for buying 15 MQ-9B high-altitude long-endurance (HALE) remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPAS). Of these, eight drones have been deployed for maritime operations and stationed at the INS Rajali. The procurement is expected to be completed by end-2026.

The Indian Navy has brought in two MQ-9B Sea Guardian drones on lease for surveillance tasks. These are already in operation from the INS Rajali base.
 

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
The American military has already given some opinions about the PLA's ASBM in reports to Congress, always adding that they are a fully conceivable comprehensive concept, but always considering the issue of the kill chain, mainly related to the issue of some enthusiasts (mainly here in this forum) claiming that the PLA can have a fully functional Chinese ASBM with an exclusively space kill chain (which is STILL unfeasible) and that it does not need to enter the defensive bubble of a CSG and, therefore, would be immune to the aircraft carrier's counteroffensive.

In the imagination of these people, just place the anti-ship MaRV on the tip of an ICBM and there will no longer be a safe place for any ship on Earth. Everyone would be within range of Chinese missiles regardless of where they were, whether in the SCS or in the Persian Gulf Sea. But sailors around the world can rest assured that this is not yet possible and they will not lose their jobs.

For the US, ASBM will be a complementary capability for the Counter-A2/AD strategy through JAM-GC (Joint Concept for Access and Maneuver in the Global Commons) for land forces, arguing that the addition of a mobile land force would contribute significantly to U.S. operations in the Pacific.

In fact, the ASBM concept as demonstrated by the US has been pursued and is functional not only by China but also by the US and not to forget India:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Bit of a strange title in that Indian article claiming their attempt at developing an ASBM is a counter to DF-21D. Makes it sound like their ASBM is a ballistic missile interceptor when it is in fact simply trying to be an ASBM.

I was under the impression the US just started developing their ASBM? not sure what you mean by "ASBM concept as demonstrated by the US has been pursued and is functional"... yes the US recently started developing their ASBM program and surely will have little trouble developing one.

Taxiya's post is not inaccurate. The US was making a lot of noise about the kill chain resilience behind an effective ASBM. It is also currently trying to develop a platform similar to China's DF-21 or DF-26 ASBM variants, depending on size and range. The juice is clearly worth the squeeze is all Taxiya is trying to say. Despite all the noise making throughout the last decade about how China's ASBM can't possibly be worth developing, they are now doing the exact same.

India's ASBM relies on imported MQ-9 drones to relay targeting information. This is by far a significantly inferior kill chain compared to what the US can field and what China has fielded for over a decade.

Those space based kill chain is one set. There currently isn't a much greater solution to this. There isn't much point claiming "it is unfeasible" whatever that even means specifically. Unlike India, China also operates WZ-7, WZ-8, and Divine Eagle HALE drones and who knows what else that isn't already around a decade old. This is in complement or independent with the space based kill chain. Over a decade after China fielded the original DF-21 based ASBMs, India is trying to develop one that is no better in performance to the DF-21 and with MQ-9 serving as relay. At least it shows the concept is worth pursuing.

As for the strawman - "members claiming space based kill chain is all you need etc" I don't see anyone here claiming the absolute resilience of ASBM kill chains. Space based systems appear to be (at least speculated here in the past) one way to get around the plasma cloud as signals aren't completely cut off from re-entry vehicles. That is all. No one is claiming space based kill chain makes ASBM an invincible weapon. It is just that having a space based kill chain is something the US is yet to complete and India is yet to even begin. In any case, war between US and China means whoever ends up with less utility from space based assets will likely create a domain denial weapon - fragmentation clouds and ASAT weapons used to negate most space based systems. Even microsatellites will be impacted. For this reason, there is even greater importance to develop and train with drones like WZ-8 and its replacement.

Oh you seem to have left out Iran from your list of ASBM wielding nations. Got there before India, using assumed similar levels of kill chain "capabilities". North Korea may or may not be in a similar position. Iranian MRBMs with MaRV at least can hit static ground targets with great accuracy. No one seems to have paid them much attention when they claimed to have ASBM based on those MaRV tech.
 
Last edited:

Sinnavuuty

Senior Member
Registered Member
Bit of a strange title in that Indian article claiming their attempt at developing an ASBM is a counter to DF-21D. Makes it sound like their ASBM is a ballistic missile interceptor when it is in fact simply trying to be an ASBM.
The title is catchy but the content is what matters. The content clearly highlights India's attempt to develop an ASBM, with the Agni-P incorporating very small MaRV fins, thus allowing optimized control at high speeds, these fins are for aerodynamic control within the endosphere, between the fins there are thrusters for roll pitch and yaw for missile control within the exosphere, the configuration allows for highly depressed trajectories and increases the glide profile according to selected requirements.
I was under the impression the US just started developing their ASBM? not sure what you mean by "ASBM concept as demonstrated by the US has been pursued and is functional"... yes the US recently started developing their ASBM program and surely will have little trouble developing one.

Taxiya's post is not inaccurate. The US was making a lot of noise about the kill chain resilience behind an effective ASBM. It is also currently trying to develop a platform similar to China's DF-21 or DF-26 ASBM variants, depending on size and range. The juice is clearly worth the squeeze is all Taxiya is trying to say. Despite all the noise making throughout the last decade about how China's ASBM can't possibly be worth developing, they are now doing the exact same.
The US already has a robust kill chain to make ASBM an applicable concept. The only difference between the US and China would be that the Americans have no intention of placing a great emphasis on naval warfare to develop an ASBM centric strategy for several reasons. This is not the American approach. The PrSM as an aeroballistic missile (like Iskander/Kinzhal and ATACMS) that can now target moving ships, with the new propulsion system they will reach a range of 1000 km. Being a ballistic missile, the USA will have two missiles that can be launched from a Himars. But as you can imagine, reaching 1000 km and still being small enough to fit on Himars means its warhead is tiny. Adding a
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
that can be used against ships is just a complement to the USA/USMC anti-ship capability, which will have a comprehensive missile package:

NSM: 185 km (subsonic)
SM-6: 400 to 500 km against surface targets (supersonic)
PrSM: 500 to 600 km (supersonic/hypersonic)
SM-6 Block IB: 1000 km (hypersonic)
Tomahawk Block V: 1600 to 1800 km (subsonic)

The ASBM concept, whether Chinese, American, Indian or Martian, appears to work well against stationary targets on land and at sea, both, in an uncontested area, in a highly collaborative scenario. Nobody doubts that this is how it works. In fact, the Pershing II had been doing this for 30 years. The question that some have is whether it works against a CSG traveling at 50 km/h. Against isolated ships or groups of ships, even an entire AB fleet, no one doubts that it works, despite there being hard kill and soft kill means of defense.

The point to be discussed continues to be: does it already work, fully, against a CSG under the protection of an air wing containing fighters and planes, radar, etc.?

A CSG is protected by fighters and radar aircraft and hinders or prevents enemy ISR activity within a 500 km radius of the aircraft carrier and this has the potential to break the kill chain involved in the operation of the missiles under discussion (DF-21D and DF- 26). There are several possible defenses against ballistic missiles. Against pure ballistic missiles the defense is basically hard kill, that is, it has to be intercepted before it reaches the target and at a safe distance, because if not, the debris will fall on it anyway. Being a guided ballistic missile, such as the DF-21D, in addition to the hard kill mode (direct interception that aims to destroy the missile) it also has the soft-kill mode, which is based on the interference of the electronic system that makes it work or offering false targets in order to deceive the seeker or hiding from the seeker in some way. Here is a list of systems of both types (hard and soft kill) possible to be implemented in a USN CSG (not including on-board aviation which can break the kill chain):

Soft kill -
AN/SLQ-32 (including newer SEWIP Block III version): active electronic jammer;
AN/SLQ-59: active electronic jammer;
AN/SLQ-62: active electronic jammer;
Mk-36 SRBOC: chaff launchers, flares, etc.;
Mk-53 Nulka: propelled active decoder system;
AN/SLQ-39: floating decapitator system;

A few years ago, a cloud of carbon particles was tested that prevents radar penetration.
The DDG-1000 is stealth and its tiny RCS does not offer enough feedback for a small and weak missile radar.

Hard kill -
Endoatmospheric interceptors:
SM-2 Block IV
SM-6
Exoatmospheric interceptors:
SM-3 Block AI
SM-3 Block IIA

This here is a short report from 2013
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
on ASBM and its weakness in the extensive kill chain:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

What I try, despite being ignorant, is to discuss the entire weapons system.

The media places the ASBM system as something insurmountable, a true game-changer (page 16):
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
For this reason, some observers have referred to ASBMs as a “game-changing” weapon.
Also, I didn't say his statement is inaccurate. I just stated that the US considers that to make ASBM an applicable concept, it would have to obtain a comprehensive kill chain to make it a reality, it turns out that this turns into a disadvantage when you nullify any targeting system at any stage of this kill chain, making the concept more complicated to pursue and can be highly contested.
India's ASBM relies on imported MQ-9 drones to relay targeting information. This is by far a significantly inferior kill chain compared to what the US can field and what China has fielded for over a decade.
The fact of being imported or national is not a relevant statement. The relevance in the ASBM concept is that it depends on some system that allows selecting and locking on the target in real time, something that a satellite-centric system cannot do, a drone is especially vital in making this capability possible.
Those space based kill chain is one set.
Exactly. They are a set of detection, location and target selection systems. From OTH radars, satellites, drones, helicopters, aircraft, aerostats and so on.
 
Top